ᐅ My floor plan for a four-family house—looking forward to your feedback.

Drop the "s" in "dass".

I see there is not even a basement planned.
Then the apartments will wear out faster, and tenant turnover will be very high.
Anyone living here will put their second refrigerator on the terrace, use the garden as a place to store bulky waste, and have to fill the apartment very densely.
What is the target group? What features are the apartments supposed to have to make them attractive? From the outside, it looks quite appealing, but it seems a bit misleading, doesn’t it? At least for the ground floor residents.

ypg schrieb:
Remove one "s" in "Dass"

I see: there isn’t even a basement planned.
Then the apartments will wear out faster and tenant turnover will be very high.
Anyone living here will put their second fridge on the terrace, use the garden as a junk storage area, and have to fill the apartment very fully.
What is the target group? What features will make the apartments attractive? From the outside, it looks quite appealing, but it seems a bit like a sham, doesn’t it? At least for the ground floor residents.

Thanks for your opinion!

Yes, there is no basement.

It is indeed a bit tight on the ground floor, but the apartment is meant to be a small to medium-sized unit. A storage room would be nice, even if it’s outside the apartment.
Do you perhaps have an idea where such a space could be located in the apartment?

In the apartment above, there is a storage room on the balcony, but it could be larger, or if the heating room in the attic is removed, it could be realized there.

Two large garages are planned, plus two garden sheds for apartments without a garage (parking space), where bicycles, tires, etc. could be stored.

The target group is not precisely defined, but the apartment above is intended for families with children, and for the one below, we will see what develops. In any case, no one who needs a second fridge on the terrace.

The apartments will be fully equipped with underfloor heating, high-quality tiles and bathrooms, network connections, satellite antenna, electric roller shutters, large windows, terraces or balconies, each with its own garden, etc. All this in a very well-located and popular residential area, close to train station, bus stops, and highways.

This architect has clearly never designed for a landlord with a real estate investment mindset. The concept suffers greatly from a vague target audience of “someone will surely be found.” They won’t—at least not if you want “attractive” tenants.

The apartment layouts are problematic in two main ways:

First, the differentiation. You can’t offer tenants in the “130 sqm” income group a 90 sqm apartment like those below, with just a “private space” for a second child.

Second, the layout. A living room of over 30 sqm (over 320 square feet) doesn’t fit with the same class of tenants as an apartment kitchen corner or a bedroom with an integrated wardrobe space of 14 sqm (150 square feet).

I have never heard that a development plan would prevent an architect from creating something more than just a lifeless, pulse-quieting design.

If renting out a semi-detached house as a whole unit didn’t make economic sense, that would be an additional reason for me to consider an asymmetrical division:

Namely, a split of about 60/40 to 55/45 in floor area; with the “narrower” part as a “maisonette plus” designed like a classic semi-detached house, and the wider part with a nice apartment on the upper floor, a studio apartment and utility room on the ground floor, and an apartment in the attic, for example.

You can’t design an investment property with a wishy-washy, see-what-happens approach :-(

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

dobbelhaus schrieb:
The target group is not precisely defined, but the plan is to have families with children living in the upper apartment and to see what develops downstairs; in any case, no one who needs a second fridge on the terrace.

Families with children usually prefer to have a garden in front of the terrace, while well-earning couples often prefer not to have one (because who takes care of it during a four-week trip to Australia), opting instead for a nice large balcony.

As an alternative to 11ant’s suggestion, you could also consider having two maisonettes per side: one large apartment (4 rooms) on the ground floor plus half of the upper floor (for example, the two children's rooms upstairs) and a generously sized 2-room apartment on the upper floor plus attic with a nice rooftop terrace (possibly with bedroom and bathroom on the upper floor and a spacious living area in the attic).

Such a layout would avoid having a second, hard-to-use living room on the upper floor if the two units were combined into one large apartment; instead, there would be a large room with a kitchen in the attic. This could then be used as a guest “apartment” or for a teenager. One downside is the additional staircase from the ground to the upper floor; here, a spiral staircase might be a good option, which could be expanded for use as a single house.

dobbelhaus schrieb:
In the apartment upstairs, there is a storage room on the balcony, which could be larger or could be relocated there if the heating room in the attic is removed.

Two large garages are planned, as well as two garden sheds for apartments without a garage (parking space), where bicycles, tires, etc. could be stored.

The issue is not whether there is a storage room for garden furniture or lawnmowers/tires. This is already realized on both levels. The main concern is storing items like ironing boards, vacuum cleaners, and similar things INSIDE the house. This is not provided on the ground floor at all and upstairs the attic would have to serve this purpose.
For me, this disqualifies these apartments as fully functional living units.

dobbelhaus schrieb:
The target group is not exactly defined, but the upstairs apartment is aimed at families with children, and the downstairs one is open to see what comes along — in any case, not people who need a second refrigerator on the terrace.

That is contradictory. The yuppie, single, or couple who would prefer just a balcony has excessive space upstairs. The family with garden access has no space to spread out.
The single downstairs would be annoyed by having a household with children above... this is not well thought-out, in my opinion.

How could it be done better?
Greed clouds judgment. Instead of building four poorly thought-out apartments where tenants only stay for one or two years before moving on to something larger (forget about high-quality finishes, since those would also raise the rent a bit), or where they could better realize themselves, I would argue for a different layout, with only three units.
Downstairs, space for four people who want a garden; upstairs, neat apartments with a maisonette-style design.

I agree! We currently live with our child in the attic. There is a small garden, but we use it very little because with a toddler, the effort to just go outside for a few minutes ends up being too much, especially when you always have to go with them instead of simply leaving the patio door open and letting the child go in and out as they please.

In my opinion, a storage room is absolutely necessary for the vacuum cleaner, drying rack, ironing board, and so on. For example, we also store the stroller there, which we no longer need, as well as extra shoe cabinets, etc.